Archive for the ‘Democratic stupidity’ Category

So, Bernie Sanders just introduced his latest single-payer healthcare bill, and most of the serious Presidential candidates for 2020 have signed on. My kick-ass Senator, Kamala Harris, has signed on. Elizabeth Warren, another kick-ass Senator, has signed on. Kirsten Gillibrand, *another* kick-ass Senator often mentioned as a possible Democratic Presidential candidate, has also signed on.

And the reaction of Clintonistas?

“You liberals are doing it wrong!”

We’re not telling people how we’re going to pay for all of this, they whine. We must have a detailed policy proposals with 1,000 page policy papers describing every detail, they whine. At which point, I gotta say: Wha?

Look, Clintonistas: You fucking lost. You lost to an orange-hued baboon that proposed building a 2,000 mile wall and proposed a funding mechanism (“Mexico will pay for it!”) that was so stupid that only an idiot (or 48% of Americans, but I repeat myself) could believe it. You lost to an orange-hued baboon that proposed deporting 15 million workers without any hint as to how to replace them in the workforce given that we don’t have 15 million unemployed Americans. You had your fucking chance, people. You had your 1,000 page papers out the fucking wazoo on your candidate’s web site. And she fucking lost, okay?

Have Democrats learned something? Yeah, they’ve learned that embracing mediocre incrementalist “third way” proposals like Hillary Clinton did is how you lose elections. This was an election that shouldn’t have even been close, you had a political pro against a complete amateur, you had a candidate with experience and poise against a reality show host most noted for being an ass on the public airwaves, you had a candidate with detailed policy proposals against a candidate who fucking handwaved everything, and your candidate fucking lost. Trump went big with “build that wall!” and “drain the swamp!”, and he beat Hillary everywhere that it counted. Unless you go big, you go home. Figuring out the details is something that happens after you get elected, first you have to get elected.

So yeah, Democrats learned something. Well, some Democrats learned something. Mainstream Clintonian “Third Way” Democrats with their thousand-page position papers and detailed cautious and incrementalist policy proposals… not so much.

So these Clintonistas say that “Free College for All” and “Universal Health Care” without attempting to determine how to pay for those things or even how much they might cost are false promises which usually means not following through on those promises because they’re unrealistic. Here’s the thing. First of all, if you don’t get fucking elected, you can’t do a goddamn thing anyhow. People like free shit, so just handwave paying for it, already. Don’t scare people with details they really don’t give a shit about. Second, we know the money is there to pay for universal health care, because we’re already paying for it, just in the most inefficient way possible, thanks to emergency room visits and other such things caused by lack of access to primary care. And we already know that the money is there to pay for college for everybody who qualifies for college, because we’re already paying for it, just in the most inefficient way possible (and in a way that basically lands a lot of young people into what’s little more than slavery, forever giving virtually all of their money to debt collectors). If there’s one thing that government is efficient at doing, it’s collecting taxes — there’s a *reason* why we fund roads through taxes rather than tolls. Setting up the street in front of my house as a private toll road would be horrifically expensive given that it has maybe ten cars per hour go down it. Collecting the taxes at a far smaller number of gas stations and via my registration fees for my car is far cheaper than that.

So in my opinion it’s fair to say “we’re already paying for that, we’re just going to do it in a fair and efficient way” and leave sweating the details until after being elected. And they’re unrealistic promises only because rich fucks don’t want to give up any of their billions that were earned by the labor of their 180 million peasants in order to provide basic services for those peasants. Hey, just serfin’ USA, yo. (In case you wonder what I’m talking about — the Walton family would make $0 if it wasn’t for all the checkout tellers and store stockers and truck drivers who make it possible for their store to sell stuff, yet, the Waltons get all the money and the people who make it possible for the stores to operate get to go on the government dole to make ends meet).

– Badtux the Serfing Penguin

Read Full Post »

As with Saul Alinsky, once more I learn that I am a follower or advocate of something that I never heard of before right-wingers educated me about what I believe, thanks to their magical psychic mind-reading powers that let them know what I believe better than I do myself. Wow! The things I learn from right wingers! I wonder if they volunteer for the Pentagon to psychically read the mind of Kim Young’un over in Korea with those amazing psychic powers of theirs?!

So anyhow, reading further, “antifa” stands for “Anti-Fascist”. Okay, I’m anti-Fascist. I’m in virulent disagreement with the government policies promulgated by the fascist governments of Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain, and Portugal in the 1930’s and 1940’s. What sensible human being wouldn’t be? I mean, their militaristic attempt to conquer half the world killed bajillions of people, and their domestic policies, where they exterminated Jews and political opponents by the millions, were horrifying. Who in the world could be pro fascist?!

So then the right wing informs me that “antifa” are the real fascists. Because they’re against right wingers. And the real fascists in Germany, Italy, etc. were left wingers. At which point I come to a full screeching halt and say, “Wha?!”.

Look. Historians have a way of classifying political organizations as left wing, right wing, or centrist.

Left wing: Believes in equality for women and religious and ethnic minorities, progressive taxation, government regulation of business, labor unions, more money spent on social programs, less money spent on the military.

Right wing: Does not believe in equality for women, believes the religious and ethnic majority should have more rights than the minorities, against progressive taxation, believes that industrialists should rule the government rather than vice-versa, labor unions should be banned, and we should spend more money on the military and less on social programs.

Note that I don’t say anything about “democracy” or “free speech” in there. Both left wing and right wing political groups have their extremists who care nothing for democracy or free speech. I don’t mention anything about anti-Communist there either — there have been left wing anti-Communist parties just as there have been right wing anti-Communist parties. There’s a lot of other commonality between the most extreme left and right wing groups I could come up with too if I tried. But the above is how historians, in general, classify political parties. And by those classifications, the fascist parties in Italy and Germany were decidedly right wing — they were against equal rights for minorities, against equality of women, against social programs, for greatly increased military spending, and so forth.

So back to “antifa”. Who the heck are they, again? So I go do some research and find that they appear to be anarchists of the American variety. Some are anarcho-Communists, some are anarcho-syndicalists. Their beliefs would be “left wing” by the definition historians use above in that they’re pro equality, pro labor, and against military spending. They’ve adopted or adapted “black bloc” tactics from other anarchist groups. And they’re assholes.

The problem is, they’re the only assholes actually fighting fascists on the streets.

Why that is a problem basically comes down to the reality that right wingers have otherwise had a monopoly on political violence. Their troll armies swiftly pollute the comments section of any article that mentions the right wing in a disparaging way with pro-Nazi anti-leftist drivel. They relentlessly “dox” people and harass them at home. They threaten people with bodily harm, and, occasionally, follow through. Hell, a bunch of right-wingers even aimed guns at police officers and BLM employees who were just doing their job as ordered by a court, and basically ran the cops out of town there at Bundyville Nevada. And the instances of violence are increasing, as the recent shooting of a left-wing protester in Seattle shows.

And when the right wingers have a monopoly on political violence, we all know where that ends. The liberal left in Germany in the 1920’s, as with the liberal left in today’s United States, instead chose a legalistic strategy of filing lawsuits and running for office, and their leaders were eventually killed by the blackshirts or brownshirts, rendering them harmless. Then the fascists just rolled into office. They’d won. There weren’t enough of the anarchists and Communists to stop the blackshirts and brownshirt, and the anarchists and Communists were overwhelmed by the fasicsts. The facists had killed all the opposition that could have prevented their takeover, and the police, just as at Bundyville, weren’t willing to confront them.

The biggest party in Weimar Germany was the SPD, the Social Democrat Party. They were a somewhat socialist left wing party, the largest left wing party, the largest party period. They, too, engaged in a campaign to demonize their version of the “antifa”, eventually outlawing the Roter Frontkämpferbund in 1929, just as our own largest left wing party is engaged in a campaign to demonize our own version of the antifa and, presumably, outlaw them (though how you outlaw an anarchist organization that explicitly has no officers, no treasury, no assets, no organizational structure, somewhat eludes me, but then again this is a government that outlawed a weed, so). And all of the SPD’s top leadership ended up being killed by the SA brownshirts, or ended up arrested and sent to Hitler’s concentration camps.

Maybe suppressing their antifa hadn’t been so smart, after all.

Just sayin’.

– Badtux the History Penguin

Read Full Post »

In order to insure Trump’s re-election, they’re talking about starting a third party to take the place of the Democratic Party.

At which point I have to roll my eyes. Look. The whole reason Hillary got such preferential treatment by the DNC is that she started out four years before the election seeding her own people into the party hierarchy from the county level on up. The rules got rigged in her favor because she worked at making sure that happened. It’s called politics. Politics is not a purity contest, it’s hard work.

So let me get this straight: These lazy-ass people who were too lazy to get involved with the Democratic Party at the grassroots level, were too lazy to get on county and state party committees, were too lazy to run for DNC delegate offices where they could vote on DNC rules… these lazy slackers are suddenly going to become not-lazy and build an entirely new party from scratch?

I call bullshit. Look, Bernie did damn well considering that he didn’t do any of the homework needed to win a Democratic nomination. But if he *had* done that homework, starting when Clinton did, he probably would have won the nomination and the election. The point being is that politics is hard work, and if you don’t do that hard work, you don’t have a chance to win. And before you say “Donald Trump”, the Tea Party and alt-right did the hard work for Donald Trump, taking over party offices and getting the rules rigged in his favor. That’s why he became the Republican nominee with only 45% of the votes in the Republican primaries.

What the Republican experience shows is that it’s possible for a small group of highly committed people to take over a major political party and get their man elected as President despite the determined opposition of a majority of the party establishment. So why is it that the Tea Party and alt-right can do this with the Republican Party, but the Bernie-bros can’t do this with the Democratic Party? Well… a) laziness, and b) ignorance. They don’t know how politics works, so they can’t fathom the political processes needed to take over a major party. The religious right, Tea Party, and alt-right don’t have that problem. They ran for local school boards etc. starting early on to build a farm team for their brand of politics, and now they dominate the Republican Party.

But that sort of hard work — starting at the grassroots, building a farm team of like-minded candidates, etc. — is way too much effort for the Bernie Bros. They intend to be the Jill Stein of presidential politics — like a groundhog sticking their head out of a hole once every four years, pronouncing four more years of Republican rule, then going back to sleep again until four years later. What a buncha whiny-ass wankers they be.

– Badtux The “Politics is hard work people” Penguin

Read Full Post »

Meanwhile, The Rude Pundit explains why Obama was ultimately a failure as President. Basically, he believed that it was possible to compromise with people who want to gut and filet you. It is not. When a violent person is coming at you in order to hurt you as much as possible, the time for talk is over, and the time to start whipping ass has started. Obama never realized this. He should have read a few of Rory Miller‘s books. He wasn’t dealing with normal civilized human beings. He was dealing with amoral thugs. He never understood that, which is why, like most nice guys, he ended up gutted and the steaming entrails of everything he hoped to accomplish will be devoured by the buzzards by the time a year is finished.

– Badtux the Disappointed Penguin

Read Full Post »

Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga), a genuine hero of the Civil Rights movement. He’s been trying his best recently to teach House Democrats how to be heros. He’s even gotten a dozen or so to actually show some spine. Too bad the rest of them are as spineless as jellyfish.

When people ask why didn’t Hillary fight, I’m thinking about what happened to Al Gore in 2000. He tried to fight in Florida, and when he needed the support of his party to counter Republican hooliganism and obstruction… [crickets]. That had to be going through Hillary’s head as she looked at the election numbers and realized that they were crooked. But would she have had support from Democrats in making that case? No more than Al in 2000, she realized, after a few conversations with Democratic insiders and leaders who are all concerned about not breaking a system that keeps them employed and wealthy, and apparently not at all concerned about America and Americans.

So anyhow, one of the things Rep. Lewis brought into this situation was questioning Trump’s legitimacy. Trump, he says, was elected with Russian help and is more legitimately president of Russia than of the United States, and he isn’t going to attend the inauguration of this pretend president. Trump, of course, immediately went on the Twitter attack, claiming in his tweets that Rep. Lewis needed to instead work on improving his own decrepit and crime-riddled impoverished district… an attack which rebounded hilariously:
The reality is that John Lewis has no fucks left to give. He’s faced down real monsters before. Has a steel plate in his head from doing that. Facing down Trump is no different.
Sadly, that kind of courage appears to be the exception, rather than the rule, in today’s Democratic Party.

You can tell a man’s character by who he stands with. I would be proud to stand with Rep. John Lewis. He is a man of integrity. Donald Trump, on the other hand, is an ignorant blowhard asshole, and so is anybody who stands with him. ‘Nuff said on that.

– Badtux the Integrity Penguin

Read Full Post »

Hello? Hello? Anybody out there?


An opposition party is supposed to be an opposition party. Not a “let’s all roll over and play Kumbaya” party.

All this Russia stuff? The Clinton campaign had it. When the election results came in, rather than contesting it and fighting it, she instead retreated into the woods in humiliating defeat and leaving us with a con man as president. Why?

My guess: Democrats are playing as if the traditional rules of the post-WW2 era still apply and Donald Trump is just an ordinary candidate rather than a Manchurian candidate who stands a real chance of setting back democracy for decades, if not forever, in the United States. This isn’t just on Hillary’s back, this seems to be almost the entire Democratic Party with a few exceptions. Kamala Harris has been quite vocal on all this, as have Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders. Every other major Democratic Party figure? [crickets]. My guess is that Hillary talked to a lot of Democratic insiders, found that they had about as much spine as a jellyfish, and said “Fuck them, they deserve Trump” and headed for the woods.

Yeah, if I found out that my so-called “supporters” had no backbone or stomach for fighting, I think I would have said “fuck it” and headed for the woods too.

– Badtux the Non-Manchurian Penguin

Read Full Post »

There is nothing normal about the election of His Fraudulency Donald J. Trump as President of the United States. He was elected courtesy of the active intervention of two intelligence agencies, Russia’s FSB and the US FBI, and massive voter suppression operations that left hundreds of thousands of ballots uncounted in critical states. He is as legitimate as his spiritual predecessor Rutherford B. Hayes was, who obtained office via a corrupt deal with the KKK, and should receive the same treatment.

Yet here I see all these Democratic politicians trying to treat this situation as if it were… normal. All the way up to attending the Inauguration and treating it like it was any other Inauguration.

I understand their motivation. They hope that if they treat this as if it were just a normal Presidential transition rather than something unusual and almost unprecedented (we’ve never before had an intelligence agency coup in the United States, after all), then maybe a Mussolini sound-alike will act like a normal President rather than like, well, a fascist. But that’s not what they’re accomplishing. What they’re accomplishing is making fascism seem normal.

This is not a normal situation. Pretending that it is, does nobody a favor. Democrats should be responding the way they responded in 1876, where they hounded Rutherford B. Hayes so badly about the fraudulent way he obtained office that he refused to run for a second term. They did their best to make “Rutherfraud”‘s life so miserable that he didn’t even *think* about abusing the power that he had with Republican majorities in both the House and Senate. That’s how you do it. Not this “oh dear, you just said a racist thing but I’ll just pretend you didn’t say it” bullshit. All that does is encourage assholes to be bigger assholes. If you don’t make it loud and clear that an asshole is an asshole and is behaving unacceptably, then assholery becomes normal and usual behavior. Pretending that it’s fine and dandy to have a President selected by intelligence agencies and via disenfranchising voters doesn’t do Democrats, nor the country, one lick of good, and is just another example of the unilateral disarmament of today’s Democrats, who refuse to get down and dirty in the trenches out of some deranged notion that “we’re better than that”. Yeah, you know what they call a pacifist on a battlefield? A dead pacificist, that’s what. If someone is shooting at you, singing “Kumbayah” doesn’t get you anything except killed.

– Badtux the Blood’n’Guts Penguin

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »